59 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Nance by and Through Nance v. Matthewsgreen2 sentences2023Nance v. Matthews, 622 So. 2d 297, 299 (Ala. 1993). 2018Nance v. Matthews , 622 So.2d 297 , 299 (Ala. 1993). | 25 | 29 |
Drummond Co. v. Alabama Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2017Co., 720 So.2d 910 (Ala. 1998). “ ‘ “In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss by means of a mandamus petition, we do not change our standard of review ....’” Drummond Co. v. Alabama Dep’t of Transp., 937 So.2d 56, 57 (Ala. 2006) (quoting Ex parte Haralson, 853 So.2d 928, 931 (Ala. 2003)). “‘In Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala. 2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “ ‘ “A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a presumption of correctness. 2015Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501, 503 (Ala.1993)). ‘ “In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss by means of a mandamus petition, we do not change our standard of review_”’ Drummond Co. v. Alabama Dep’t of Transp., 937 So.2d 56, 57 (Ala.2006) (quoting Ex parte Haralson, 853 So.2d 928, 931 (Ala.2003)). “‘In Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala.2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “1 “A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a presumption of correctness. | 7 | 7 |
Ex Parte Haralsongreen2 sentences2017Co., 720 So.2d 910 (Ala. 1998). “ ‘ “In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss by means of a mandamus petition, we do not change our standard of review ....’” Drummond Co. v. Alabama Dep’t of Transp., 937 So.2d 56, 57 (Ala. 2006) (quoting Ex parte Haralson, 853 So.2d 928, 931 (Ala. 2003)). “‘In Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala. 2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “ ‘ “A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a presumption of correctness. 2015Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501, 503 (Ala.1993)). ‘ “In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss by means of a mandamus petition, we do not change our standard of review_”’ Drummond Co. v. Alabama Dep’t of Transp., 937 So.2d 56, 57 (Ala.2006) (quoting Ex parte Haralson, 853 So.2d 928, 931 (Ala.2003)). “‘In Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala.2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “1 “A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a presumption of correctness. | 7 | 7 |
Ex Parte United Service Stations, Inc.green2 sentences2015Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501, 503 (Ala.1993)). ‘ “In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss by means of a mandamus petition, we do not change our standard of review_”’ Drummond Co. v. Alabama Dep’t of Transp., 937 So.2d 56, 57 (Ala.2006) (quoting Ex parte Haralson, 853 So.2d 928, 931 (Ala.2003)). “‘In Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala.2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “1 “A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a presumption of correctness. 2014Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501, 503 (Ala.1993)). “ ‘In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss by means of a mandamus petition, we do not change our standard of review....’” Drummond Co. v. Alabama Dep’t of Transp., 937 So.2d 56, 57 (Ala.2006) (quoting Ex parte Haralson, 853 So.2d 928, 931 (Ala.2003)). “ ‘ “In Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala.2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “ ‘ “ ‘A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a presumption of correctness. | 6 | 6 |
American Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hughesgreen2 sentences2018We apply the following standard of review in considering this issue: "In American National Fire Insurance Co. v. Hughes , 624 So.2d 1362 (Ala. 1993), this Court set out the standard that applies to the appellate review of a trial court's ruling on a motion for a JML: " 'The standard of review applicable to a ruling on a motion for JNOV [now referred to as a renewed motion for a JML] is identical to the standard used by the trial court in granting or denying a motion for directed verdict [now referred to as a motion for a JML]. 2018We apply the following standard of review in considering this issue: "In American National Fire Insurance Co. v. Hughes , 624 So.2d 1362 (Ala. 1993), this Court set out the standard that applies to the appellate review of a trial court's ruling on a motion for a JML: " 'The standard of review applicable to a ruling on a motion for JNOV [now referred to as a renewed motion for a JML] is identical to the standard used by the trial court in granting or denying a motion for directed verdict [now referred to as a motion for a JML]. | 5 | 5 |
Newman v. Savasgreen2 sentences2023In discussing the review of a denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction, the court further explained: " ' "In Newman v. Savas, 878 So. 2d 1147 (Ala. 2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: " ' " 'A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a presumption of correctness. 2018Standard of Review In Pontius v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company , 915 So.2d 557 , 563 (Ala. 2005), our supreme court outlined the standard of review in cases in which a motion to dismiss alleges a lack of standing: "In Newman v. Savas , 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala. 2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: " 'A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a presumption of correctness. | 2 | 28 |
Pontius v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.green2 sentences2018Standard of Review In Pontius v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company , 915 So.2d 557 , 563 (Ala. 2005), our supreme court outlined the standard of review in cases in which a motion to dismiss alleges a lack of standing: "In Newman v. Savas , 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala. 2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: " 'A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a presumption of correctness. 2012Standards of Review A.Appeal in the First Action (No. 1100063) In Pontius v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 915 So.2d 557, 563 (Ala.2005), this Court stated the standard of review applicable to a ruling on a motion to dismiss an action for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “In Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala.2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “ ‘A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a presumption of correctness. | 1 | 2 |
Abyssinia Missionary Baptist Church v. Nixongreen1 sentence2015However, there is jurisdiction to resolve questions of civil or property rights, Williams v. Jones, 258 Ala. 59 , 61 So.2d 101 (1952).’” 103 So.3d at 53 (quoting Abyssinia Missionary Baptist Church v. Nixon, 340 So.2d 746, 748 (Ala.1976)). | 1 | 1 |
Higgs v. Bolegreen2 sentences2015Ex parte Bole, [ 103 So.3d 40, 50 (Ala.2012)].” In Ex parte Bole, 103 So.3d 40 (Ala.2012), this Court set out the standard for determining whether, under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, A state court has jurisdiction over a church dispute: “With regard to a state court’s jurisdiction over a church in the face of a First Amendment challenge, this Court has stated: ‘“As is the casé'with all churches, the courts will hot assume jurisdiction, in fact has none, to resolve disputes regarding their spiritual or ecclesiastical affairs. 2015Ex parte Bole, [ 103 So.3d 40, 50 (Ala.2012)].” In Ex parte Bole, 103 So.3d 40 (Ala.2012), this Court set out the standard for determining whether, under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, A state court has jurisdiction over a church dispute: “With regard to a state court’s jurisdiction over a church in the face of a First Amendment challenge, this Court has stated: ‘“As is the casé'with all churches, the courts will hot assume jurisdiction, in fact has none, to resolve disputes regarding their spiritual or ecclesiastical affairs. | 1 | 1 |
Orr v. Orrgreen1 sentence2014Recently, this court set out the standard to be used by trial courts in awarding periodic alimony: “Under Alabama law, periodic alimony consists of regular installment payments made from one spouse to another to enable the recipient spouse, to the extent possible, to maintain his or her standard of living as it existed during the marriage, i.e., the ‘economic status quo.’ Orr v. Orr, 374 So.2d 895, 897 (Ala.Civ.App.1979).... “... | 1 | 1 |
Stone v. Stonegreen1 sentence2014This court and our supreme court have enumerated the many factors trial courts must consider when weighing the propriety of an award of periodic alimony, Edwards v. Edwards, 26 So.3d 1254, 1259 (Ala.Civ.App.2009), which include: the length of the marriage, Stone v. Stone, 26 So.3d 1232, 1236 (Ala.Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2014This court and our supreme court have enumerated the many factors trial courts must consider when weighing the propriety of an award of periodic alimony, Edwards v. Edwards, 26 So.3d 1254, 1259 (Ala.Civ.App.2009), which include: the length of the marriage, Stone v. Stone, 26 So.3d 1232, 1236 (Ala.Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Alabama Dept. of Mental Healthgreen1 sentence2013“Therefore, a court’s failure to dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity may properly be addressed by a petition for the writ of mandamus.” Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Mental Health & Retardation, 837 So.2d 808, 810-11 (Ala.2002).’ “Ex parte Davis, 930 So.2d 497, 499-500 (Ala.2005).” Ex parte Lawley, 38 So.3d 41, 44-45 (Ala.2009). “ ‘In Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala.2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “ ‘ “A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Davisgreen1 sentence2013“Therefore, a court’s failure to dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity may properly be addressed by a petition for the writ of mandamus.” Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Mental Health & Retardation, 837 So.2d 808, 810-11 (Ala.2002).’ “Ex parte Davis, 930 So.2d 497, 499-500 (Ala.2005).” Ex parte Lawley, 38 So.3d 41, 44-45 (Ala.2009). “ ‘In Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala.2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “ ‘ “A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a | 1 | 1 |
Drummond v. Lawleygreen1 sentence2013“Therefore, a court’s failure to dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity may properly be addressed by a petition for the writ of mandamus.” Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Mental Health & Retardation, 837 So.2d 808, 810-11 (Ala.2002).’ “Ex parte Davis, 930 So.2d 497, 499-500 (Ala.2005).” Ex parte Lawley, 38 So.3d 41, 44-45 (Ala.2009). “ ‘In Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala.2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “ ‘ “A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a | 1 | 1 |
TFT, Inc. v. WARNING SYSTEMS, INC.green1 sentence2011In Grove Hill, this court set out the standard for issuing a permanent injunction: “ ‘To be entitled to a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate success on the merits, a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the harm the injunction may cause the defendant, and that granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest.’ ” 43 So.3d at 613 (quoting TFT, Inc. v. Warning Sys., Inc., 751 So.2d 1238, 1242 (Ala.1999), overruled on other grounds, Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins, 12 So.3d 1173 (Al | 1 | 1 |
| Henderson v. Winklergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Watts Const. Co. v. Cullman Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ellard v. State
green
2 sentences2015In Ellard v. State, 474 So.2d 743 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), this Court set out the standard of review applicable to a certiora-ri petition seeking review of a decision of the Board: “On petition for writ of certiorari the circuit court is, as is the appellate court, limited in its review of quasi-judicial acts of administrative officers and boards. 2005Williams also appears to argue that the Board failed to hold a parole hearing within a reasonable time after he was returned to Alabama and that the delay that resulted violated his right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. 8 In Ellard v. State, 474 So.2d 743 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984), aff'd, 474 So.2d 758 (Ala. 1985), this Court set out the standard of review applicable to a certiorari petition seeking review of a decision of the Board: "On petition for writ of certiorari the circuit court is, as is the appellate court, limited in its review of quasi-judicial acts of administ | 2 | 2005–2015 |
EX PARTE McCARTNEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
green
1 sentence2017Co., 720 So.2d 910 (Ala. 1998). “ ‘ “In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss by means of a mandamus petition, we do not change our standard of review ....’” Drummond Co. v. Alabama Dep’t of Transp., 937 So.2d 56, 57 (Ala. 2006) (quoting Ex parte Haralson, 853 So.2d 928, 931 (Ala. 2003)). “‘In Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala. 2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “ ‘ “A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a presumption of correctness. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Cheshire v. Putman
green
1 sentence2017Standard of Review In Cheshire v. Putman , 54 So.3d 336 , 340 (Ala. 2010), this Court set forth the following standard of review applicable to our review of a ruling on a motion for a JML: "In American National Fire Insurance Co. v. Hughes , 624 So.2d 1362 (Ala. 1993), this Court set out the standard that applies to the appellate review of a trial court's ruling on a motion for a JML: " 'The standard of review applicable to a ruling on a motion for JNOV [now referred to as a renewed motion for a JML] is identical to the standard used by the trial court in granting or denying a motion for direc | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Williams v. Jones
green
2 sentences2015However, there is jurisdiction to resolve questions of civil or property rights, Williams v. Jones, 258 Ala. 59 , 61 So.2d 101 (1952).’” 103 So.3d at 53 (quoting Abyssinia Missionary Baptist Church v. Nixon, 340 So.2d 746, 748 (Ala.1976)). 2015However, there is jurisdiction to resolve questions of civil or property rights, Williams v. Jones, 258 Ala. 59 , 61 So.2d 101 (1952).’” 103 So.3d at 53 (quoting Abyssinia Missionary Baptist Church v. Nixon, 340 So.2d 746, 748 (Ala.1976)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ex Parte Alabama Dept. of Transp.
green
1 sentence2014In Ex parte Alabama Department of Transportation, 978 So.2d 718 , 720 (Ala.2007), our supreme court stated: “ ‘ “In Newman, v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala.2003), this Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: “ ‘ “ ‘A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed without a presumption of correctness. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Shewbart v. Shewbart
green
1 sentence2014Using that framework, to paraphrase Shewbart , in deciding a request for attorney’s fees, “a trial court essentially determines whether the petitioning spouse has demonstrated a [financial] need for [the fees] that the responding spouse can and, under the circumstances, should meet.” 64 So.3d at 1087 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Armory Commission of Alabama v. Staudt
green
2 sentences2013In Armory Commission of Alabama v. Staudt, 388 So.2d 991 (Ala.1980), the Court set out the test to determine if an entity is part of the State and therefore entitled to sovereign immunity: “Whether a lawsuit against a body created by legislative enactment is a suit against the state depends on the character of power delegated to the body, the relation of the body to the state, and the nature of the function performed by the body. 2013All factors in the relationship must be examined to determine whether the suit is against an arm of the state or merely against a franchisee licensed for some beneficial purpose.” 388 So.2d at 993 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins
green
1 sentence2011In Grove Hill, this court set out the standard for issuing a permanent injunction: “ ‘To be entitled to a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate success on the merits, a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the harm the injunction may cause the defendant, and that granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest.’ ” 43 So.3d at 613 (quoting TFT, Inc. v. Warning Sys., Inc., 751 So.2d 1238, 1242 (Ala.1999), overruled on other grounds, Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins, 12 So.3d 1173 (Al | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Grove Hill Homeowners' Ass'n v. Rice
green
2 sentences2011In Grove Hill, this court set out the standard for issuing a permanent injunction: “ ‘To be entitled to a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate success on the merits, a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the harm the injunction may cause the defendant, and that granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest.’ ” 43 So.3d at 613 (quoting TFT, Inc. v. Warning Sys., Inc., 751 So.2d 1238, 1242 (Ala.1999), overruled on other grounds, Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins, 12 So.3d 1173 (Al 2011This court then determined that the trial court had erred in determining that § 6.20 contained a latent ambiguity, and we concluded that the Rices’ driveway violated § 6.20 of the restrictive covenants and, therefore, that the Association had demonstrated success on the merits. 43 So.3d at 615 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Trzcinski
green
1 sentence2010Further, in Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Trzcinski, 682 So.2d 17 (Ala.1996), this Court held: “The motion for a J.N.O.V. [now referred to as a renewed motion for a JML] is a procedural device used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hobson v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co.
green
1 sentence2006In Hobson v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co. , 690 So.2d 341 , 344 (Ala. 1997), this Court set out the standard for reviewing a summary judgment: "In reviewing the disposition of a motion for summary judgment, `we utilize the same standard as the trial court in determining whether the evidence before [it] made out a genuine issue of *Page 1160 material fact,' Bussey v. John Deere Co. , 531 So.2d 860 , 862 (Ala. 1988), and whether the movant was `entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Wright v. Wright , 654 So.2d 542 (Ala. 1995); Rule 56(c), Ala. R. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Bussey v. John Deere Co.
green
1 sentence2006In Hobson v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co. , 690 So.2d 341 , 344 (Ala. 1997), this Court set out the standard for reviewing a summary judgment: "In reviewing the disposition of a motion for summary judgment, `we utilize the same standard as the trial court in determining whether the evidence before [it] made out a genuine issue of *Page 1160 material fact,' Bussey v. John Deere Co. , 531 So.2d 860 , 862 (Ala. 1988), and whether the movant was `entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Wright v. Wright , 654 So.2d 542 (Ala. 1995); Rule 56(c), Ala. R. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Wright v. Wright
green
1 sentence2006In Hobson v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co. , 690 So.2d 341 , 344 (Ala. 1997), this Court set out the standard for reviewing a summary judgment: "In reviewing the disposition of a motion for summary judgment, `we utilize the same standard as the trial court in determining whether the evidence before [it] made out a genuine issue of *Page 1160 material fact,' Bussey v. John Deere Co. , 531 So.2d 860 , 862 (Ala. 1988), and whether the movant was `entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Wright v. Wright , 654 So.2d 542 (Ala. 1995); Rule 56(c), Ala. R. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Ex Parte Ellard
green
1 sentence2005Williams also appears to argue that the Board failed to hold a parole hearing within a reasonable time after he was returned to Alabama and that the delay that resulted violated his right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. 8 In Ellard v. State, 474 So.2d 743 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984), aff'd, 474 So.2d 758 (Ala. 1985), this Court set out the standard of review applicable to a certiorari petition seeking review of a decision of the Board: "On petition for writ of certiorari the circuit court is, as is the appellate court, limited in its review of quasi-judicial acts of administ | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Jeter green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Blackwell v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Ervin v. Amerigas Propane, Inc. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Cunningham v. Langston, Frazer, Sweet & Freese green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State Ex Rel. Galanos v. Mapco Petroleum green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Hunt v. State green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Ex Parte Hunt green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| United States v. Lonnie Schmidt green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| National SEC. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bowen green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Alpine Bay Resorts, Inc. v. Wyatt green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| ATTALLA GOLF & CTY. CLUB v. Harris green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Christiansen v. Hall green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Bradford v. McGee green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Alabama Power Company v. Taylor green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Cuyler v. Sullivan green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Batson v. Kentucky green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Payne v. Alabama Cemetery Ass'n, Inc. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Martin v. Jones green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Bowling v. Pow green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Tidmore v. City of Birmingham green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Ex Parte Tidmore neutral | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.